From owner-hpff-interpret Tue Nov 21 14:36:27 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by cs.rice.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) id OAA23993 for hpff-interpret-out; Tue, 21 Nov 1995 14:36:27 -0600 (CST) Received: from pacific.pgroup.com (pacific.pgroup.com [192.124.124.8]) by cs.rice.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id OAA23986 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 1995 14:36:09 -0600 (CST) Received: (from lfm@localhost) by pacific.pgroup.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) id MAA10981 for hpff-interpret@cs.rice.edu; Tue, 21 Nov 1995 12:36:03 -0800 Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 12:36:03 -0800 From: Larry Meadows Message-Id: <199511212036.MAA10981@pacific.pgroup.com> To: hpff-interpret@cs.rice.edu Subject: hpff-interpret: Pointers in HPF 1.1 Sender: owner-hpff-interpret Precedence: bulk --------------------------------------------------------------------------- hpff-interpret@cs.rice.edu is a mailing list for corrections, clarifications, and interpretations related to High Performance Fortran. Instructions for adding or deleting yourself from this list appear at the bottom of this message. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've noticed an inconsistency in the 1.1 document wrt F90 pointers. You'll recall CCI 6.3, from last year; this resulted in additional constraints to the 1.1 document, that alignees and distributees could not have the POINTER target (p. 27, line 5, and p. 32, line 5). However, later in the same chapter, there is some text (p. 38, line 33): A variable with the POINTER or ALLOCATABLE attribute may appear as an alignee in an ALIGN directive or as a distributee in a DISTRIBUTE directive. This is clearly a contradiction. This is also somewhat related to CCI #11 (what is the SEQUENCE attribute when associated with a pointer). I'm assuming the following, in HPF 1.1: 1) Mapping statements can't apply to pointers. Note, therefore, that allocated pointers cannot be explicitly mapped. 2) Pointers can point to any object, regardless of their mapping attributes. For HPF 2.0, there was some restriction on pointers that I've forgotten. It really seems that a restriction similar to the following would be in the spirit of Kernel HPF: Mapping statements can be applied to pointers. These statements assert that any object with which the pointer is associated will have the described. Pointers with mapping statements may point only to whole arrays, not to subarrays. Pointers without mapping statements may point only to objects without explicit mappings, and may point to subarrays of those objects. lfm --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To (un)subscribe to this list, send mail to hpff-interpret-request@cs.rice.edu. Leave the subject line blank, and in the body put the line (un)subscribe --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-hpff-interpret Thu Nov 30 19:21:38 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by cs.rice.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) id TAA19886 for hpff-interpret-out; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 19:21:38 -0600 (CST) Received: from VNET.IBM.COM (vnet.ibm.com [199.171.26.4]) by cs.rice.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id TAA19879 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 19:21:34 -0600 (CST) Received: from TOROLAB by VNET.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 7223; Thu, 30 Nov 95 20:21:23 EST Received: by TOROLAB (XAGENTA 4.0) id 3208; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 20:24:20 -0500 Received: by twinpeaks.torolab.ibm.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA19053; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 20:21:26 -0500 From: (Henry Zongaro) Message-Id: <9512010121.AA19053@twinpeaks.torolab.ibm.com> Subject: hpff-interpret: NEW-clause To: hpff-interpret@cs.rice.edu Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 20:21:23 -2900 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24alpha3] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-hpff-interpret Precedence: bulk --------------------------------------------------------------------------- hpff-interpret@cs.rice.edu is a mailing list for corrections, clarifications, and interpretations related to High Performance Fortran. Instructions for adding or deleting yourself from this list appear at the bottom of this message. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello, One of my coworkers has the following question: May the index variable of a DO-loop appear in the NEW clause of an INDEPENDENT directive on that DO? For example, !HPF$ INDEPENDENT, NEW(I) DO I = 1, 10 END DO If so, what does it mean? Does it simply mean that the programmer is guaranteeing that the value of I is not used after the DO-loop? Thanks, Henry --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To (un)subscribe to this list, send mail to hpff-interpret-request@cs.rice.edu. Leave the subject line blank, and in the body put the line (un)subscribe ---------------------------------------------------------------------------